I honestly think he shouldn't be removed as his personal life shouldn't reflect his achievements on court. Sure, what he did is unthinkable and unforgivable and shouldn't be a part of anyone's life but for the sole reason of it going out over what he did on court, I refuse to sign this.

I honestly think he shouldn't be removed as his personal life shouldn't reflect his achievements on court. Sure, what he did is unthinkable and unforgivable and shouldn't be a part of anyone's life but for the sole reason of it going out over what he did on court, I refuse to sign this.

Click to expand...

Wow.

This was part of his "professional life" if the allegations are correct. He did this as a coach.

I honestly think he shouldn't be removed as his personal life shouldn't reflect his achievements on court. Sure, what he did is unthinkable and unforgivable and shouldn't be a part of anyone's life but for the sole reason of it going out over what he did on court, I refuse to sign this.

Click to expand...

I believe the point of a hall of fame is to have people that the majority of the players would want to represent them.

By that statement I do believe that, while accomplishments are a major factor, it is a subjective choice to have a person in the hall of fame. If enough people don't want him as a representative then he should be removed.

One of the worst things an adult can do is to sexually take advantage of a teenager or child.
It's paedophilia pure and simple and there's no place in tennis for anyone like that, least of all the Hall of Fame.

totally agree. Bob Hewitt was a champion on the court. if his actions off court out weigh what he accomplished on the court then so be it. I for one believe he belongs in the TENNIS hall of fame based on his tennis. He defiantly won't be making the coaching hall of fame

The Hall of Fame has always struck me as more of a popularity contest than something based purely on accomplishments. I think players that do substantial work to represent the game off of the court should be rewarded, but likewise, those that failed to honorably represent the sport should not be praised.

Yes, I did. Bob Hewitt is being accused of molesting teenagers. Bill Tilden was tried and convicted of molesting teenagers. TWICE.

Click to expand...

I don't know a lot about the Bob Hewitt case, but you're right that Tilden was tried and convicted twice. He also served time in prison, twice, for his crimes. However, that doesn't seem to satisfy some people who appear to want his blood, despite the fact that he's long dead. Of course, he could have murdered a dozen babies and drunk their blood without changing his great tennis record.

The journalist Frank Deford wrote an excellent biography of Bill Tilden, entitled "Bill Tilden - The Triumphs and the Tragedy". It was first published in 1976. Deford also wrote the following pieces on Tilden for "Sports Illustrated". They were published in that magazine in January 1975:

There's one reason as to why I won't sign. Tilden was convicted, spent some time yet he still got inducted based on his tennis. Sure, apart from genocide the worst thing one can commit IMO is sexual abuse towards children, but if Bill's not thrown out, why Bob?

There's one reason as to why I won't sign. Tilden was convicted, spent some time yet he still got inducted based on his tennis. Sure, apart from genocide the worst thing one can commit IMO is sexual abuse towards children, but if Bill's not thrown out, why Bob?

Click to expand...

What else would Bill Tilden have been inducted on the basis of? Because he had been an exemplary husband and father of 2.5 children?

Tilden was convicted twice and went to jail on both occasions.
With Hewitt, throwing him out of the hof might be the only chance of
some kind of ´conviction´ that his victims might get.
Hewitt has the right to a very thorough investigation though, and to defend himself should he choose to.

Tilden was convicted twice and went to jail on both occasions.
With Hewitt, throwing him out of the hof might be the only chance of
some kind of ´conviction´ that his victims might get.
Hewitt has the right to a very thorough investigation though, and to defend himself should he choose to.

Tilden was convicted twice and went to jail on both occasions.
With Hewitt, throwing him out of the hof might be the only chance of
some kind of ´conviction´ that his victims might get.
Hewitt has the right to a very thorough investigation though, and to defend himself should he choose to.

Click to expand...

I have already covered this. With possible criminal and civil action pending, he can't defend himself without compromising his defense in court. No lawyer of his, in his right mind would let him testify at such hearings with any specificity to allegations.

I have already covered this. With possible criminal and civil action pending, he can't defend himself without compromising his defense in court. No lawyer of his, in his right mind would let him testify at such hearings with any specificity to allegations.

Click to expand...

That is very understandable.
It seems unlikely to me that there will be any trial.

I honestly think he shouldn't be removed as his personal life shouldn't reflect his achievements on court. Sure, what he did is unthinkable and unforgivable and shouldn't be a part of anyone's life but for the sole reason of it going out over what he did on court, I refuse to sign this.

Click to expand...

Yes, because his personal life including molestation of pre-teen children should be excluded when considering placing him in a hall of fame. Yes, that makes perfect sense. I agree entirely with this petition. I don't care how great your sports ability is, because your entire character is ruined when allegations such as these come out.

Yes, because his personal life including molestation of pre-teen children should be excluded when considering placing him in a hall of fame. Yes, that makes perfect sense. I agree entirely with this petition. I don't care how great your sports ability is, because your entire character is ruined when allegations such as these come out.

Click to expand...

Do you mean that Bob Hewitt has been convicted of molesting children, or that certain people, including alleged victims, have only said he did so? Because you can allege that someone did something without it's actually being true. Allegations can cause great damage to a person's character, but they don't stand up in a court of law.

Do you mean that Bob Hewitt has been convicted of molesting children, or that certain people, including alleged victims, have only said he did so? Because you can allege that someone did something without it's actually being true. Allegations can cause great damage to a person's character, but they don't stand up in a court of law.

Click to expand...

Generally when you have multiple people coming forward and saying that he violated them sexually, it's a pretty good indication that Hewitt is a terrible person and a rapist.

I saw the real sports special, and the women that were interviewed seemed pretty genuine to me. Additionally, what's their motivation to lie and fabricate a story? There isn't any money in this, hell the statute of limitations has already passed, so Hewitt will probably never be formally charged with the crimes... I find it hard to believe that a dozen women just got together and decided to tarnish Bob Hewitt's reputation with a story involving sexual abuse, solely for a laugh...

Yes, I did. Bob Hewitt is being accused of molesting teenagers. Bill Tilden was tried and convicted of molesting teenagers. TWICE.

Click to expand...

One difference is that Bill Tilden didn't try to use _tennis_ to find adolescent partners -- he merely gave them expensive gifts. He had many young tennis students, but all of them claimed he kept the relationship professional and never touched them.

This scandal is certainly making Hewitt more famous; so maybe to distinguish between fame and notoriety the Tennis Hall of Fame should open a separate wing called the "Tennis Hall of Infamy."

Generally there is no statute of limitations with respect to r.a.p.e.. What am I missing here?
Tilden was convicted.
Conviction>allegations.
This does not excuse Hewitt, but why the double standard?

Click to expand...

Uh, I just gave one reason right above your post. Tilden's sex life was kept separate from his tennis. Hewitt, in contrast, traded on his position in the tournament tennis community to fish in those waters.

It is interesting that back in the 1970s and '80s when I read about tennis, the big scandal was not that Tilden's playmates were minors (I get the feeling they were in their mid to late teens), but that he was homosexual. Back then, the objection to having sex specifically with minors is that you were morally corrupting them (and that accusation vanished if the teen in question had already been corrupted, i.e., was not a virgin, when you first had sex).

Of course, any sort of sex outside of marriage was considered immoral in Tilden's era, and if you crossed the state line and had sex it became a federal offense (the Mann Act: "Transporting a woman across state line for an immoral purpose") and the FBI might get involved.

Hotels had their own private detectives to look out for people sneaking lovers into hotel rooms, just as they might today investigate a customer suspected of selling drugs from his room.

The 1970s was when the bohemian rejection of sexual morality (i.e., what, until then, had always been considered sexual morality) spread to the general population. For all we know, Hewitt might have told himself that he was liberating and enlightening these girls. (I suppose few wish to admit to being a selfish and bullying pig.)

Generally there is no statute of limitations with respect to r.a.p.e.. What am I missing here?
Tilden was convicted.
Conviction>allegations.
This does not excuse Hewitt, but why the double standard?

Click to expand...

That's not true. But, more importantly, there was in virtually every jurisdiction 30 years ago. As for Tilden, I don't know what he was convicted of. But, IMO, for HOF purposes, statutory **** of a consenting older teen is far less offensive than forcible **** of a young teen or pre-teen.

I honestly think he shouldn't be removed as his personal life shouldn't reflect his achievements on court. Sure, what he did is unthinkable and unforgivable and shouldn't be a part of anyone's life but for the sole reason of it going out over what he did on court, I refuse to sign this.

Click to expand...

Think about Pete Rose (Charlie Hustle), all-time Major League leader in hits (4,256), games played (3,562), at-bats (14,053) and outs (10,328). He won three World Series rings, three batting titles, one Most Valuable Player Award, two Gold Gloves, the Rookie of the Year Award, and made 17 All-Star appearances at an unequaled five different positions (2B, LF, RF, 3B & 1B). Yet he is ineligible for Baseball Hall of Fame for what he did, not as a player but as manager

That's not true. But, more importantly, there was in virtually every jurisdiction 30 years ago. As for Tilden, I don't know what he was convicted of. But, IMO, for HOF purposes, statutory **** of a consenting older teen is far less offensive than forcible **** of a young teen or pre-teen.

Click to expand...

The whole concept of statutory R.A.P.E. is that the YOUTH is not of an age to CONSENT.
So, Tilden R.A.P.E.D. children as did Hewitt.
Class acts, neither of them.

The whole concept of statutory R.A.P.E. is that the YOUTH is not of an age to CONSENT.
So, Tilden R.A.P.E.D. children as did Hewitt.
Class acts, neither of them.

Click to expand...

One of the reasons why I have been defending Bill Tilden on these boards is because I know that, whatever he did with the two adolescents in question, in reality he certainly did NOT r-a-p-e either of them. In fact, from what I've read he didn't really do much with them, although what he did was, of course, against the law. That is why he was sentenced and served a certain amount of time followng each misdemeanour. And rightly so.

Now, if Tilden had really raped one of those boys, I don't think that he would have been let out of jail ever again. As it was, he was let out early for good behaviour after serving only part of one sentence (the first, I think). So those who would (still) have him hung, drawn and quartered are rather wide of the mark. And their lust for some sort of empty vengeance will never be satisfied.

The whole concept of statutory R.A.P.E. is that the YOUTH is not of an age to CONSENT.
So, Tilden R.A.P.E.D. children as did Hewitt.
Class acts, neither of them.

Click to expand...

You're confusing law with morality. Just because the law uses the same word to refer to two different kinds of acts, or even punishes them the same, doesn't mean the two acts are morally equivalent. (And, so far as I know, Tilden's acts were limited to "heavy petting".)

well to me, if there is a section of qualifications depicting the proper character of its inductees, that section should apply until it is removed or amended. That means there must be some scrutiny to the matters of character it described as relevant at the time of induction. It puts the committee in a precarious no/ win situation if those issues involve pending or possible legal action. they have to do a job they will do poorly.

my view of the professional organisations representing coaches or players ought not concern themselves judging conduct of inactive members like Hewett who no longer coaches in tennis. They no longer have to do the job at all.